Davis v. John Roper Lumber Co, 79
Decision Date | 16 November 1925 |
Docket Number | No. 79,79 |
Citation | 269 U.S. 158,70 L.Ed. 209,44 A.L.R. 1357,46 S.Ct. 28 |
Parties | DAVIS, Director General, v. JOHN L. ROPER LUMBER CO |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. A. A. McLaughlin, of Washington, D. C., and R. M. Hughes, Jr., of Norfolk, Va., for petitioner.
Mr. C. M. Bain, of Norfolk, Va., for respondent.
There is here for review a judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia which affirmed a judgment of the court of law and chancery against petitioner for $1,046.88. 138 Va. 377, 122 S. E. 113. June 24, 1918, at New Bern, N. C., respondent delivered to petitioner, then operating the Norfolk Southern Railroad, a carload of scrap iron for transportation over that line and connecting lines to Clarksburg, W. Va. Petitioner issued a bill of lading, consigning the shipment to the order of respondent, 'notify George Yampolsky at Clarksburg.' It contained a clause requiring surrender of the bill of lading properly indorsed before delivery of the property, and provided that:
The shipment arrived at Clarksburg, July 15, 1918, and on that day was delivered to Yampolsky without surrender of the bill of lading and without the knowledge of the respondent, who at all times has been its lawful holder. No claim was made by respondent until March 5, 1920.
The Act of Congress of March 4, 1915 (known as the first Cummins Amendment), c. 176, 38 Stat. 1196, 1197 (Comp. St. § 8604a), section 20 of the Act to Regulate Commerce, requires a common carrier, receiving property for transportation in interstate commerce, to issue a receipt or bill of lading therefor, and makes it liable to the holder for any loss, damage, or injury to such property, and contains these provisos:
'Provided further, that it shall be unlawful for any such common carrier to provide by rule, contract, regulation, or otherwise a shorter period for giving notice of claims than ninety days and for the filing of claims for a shorter period than four months, and for the institution of suits than two years: Provided, however, that if the loss, damage, or injury complained of was due to delay or damage while being loaded or unloaded, or damaged in transit by carelessness or negligence, then no notice of claim nor filing of claim shall be required as a condition precedent to recovery.'
There is presented the question whether this case is one in which the right of recovery may be made to depend upon the making of claim as required by the bill of lading. The provisos in section 20 have been recently considered by this court in Barrett v. Van Pelt, 268 U. S. 85, 45 S. Ct. 437, 69 L. Ed. 857. It was there pointed out that the purpose of the second proviso is to take some cases out of the general rule declared by the first proviso. And, in view of the inapt language and defective structure of the second, it was held that the word 'damaged' should be read 'damage,' and that the comma after 'unloaded' should be eliminated. It was also held that 'carelessness or negligence' is an element in each case of loss, damage, or injury there named. The judgment now...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Campbell v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co.
... ... Fitzpatrick, ... Brown & Davis and C. W. Strickling, all of Huntington, for ... plaintiff ... 319, 70 L.Ed. 659; Davis, Director General, etc., v. John ... L. Roper Lumber Co., 269 U.S. 158, 46 S.Ct. 28, 70 ... ...
-
Hopper Paper Co. v. Baltimore & OR Co.
...75 L.Ed. 983; St. Louis, I. M. & So. Ry. Co. v. Starbird, 243 U.S. 592, 37 S.Ct. 462, 61 L.Ed. 917; Davis v. Roper Lumber Co., 269 U.S. 158, 46 S.Ct. 28, 70 L.Ed. 209, 44 A.L.R. 1357; American Ry. Express Co. v. The Fashion Shop, 56 App.D.C. 114, 10 F.2d 909; Manby v. Union Pacific R. Co., ......
-
Chesapeake Ry Co v. Thompson Mag Co
...& Alabama Ry. Co. v. Blish Co., 36 S. Ct. 541, 241 U. S. 190, 60 L. Ed. 948; Barrett v. Van Pelt, supra; Davis v. Roper Lumber Co., 46 S. Ct. 28, 269 U. S. 158, 70 L. Ed. 209. It was argued by petitioner in the state court, as it argues here, that, as respondent offered no direct evidence t......
-
The Farmers Grain and Supply Company v. The Atchison
... ... 195, 197. See, also, ... Davis, Director General, v. John L. Roper Lumber ... Co., 269 ... ...